[HOLD for payment 2024-06-20] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-18] [$250] Task- User avatar when opening from task preview mention is not the same as chat header avatar

[lanitochka17]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.72-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to FAB > Assign task
3. Enter title > Next
4. Click Assignee
5. Enter a random email address that does not have Expensify account
6. Create the task
7. After a while, click on the user mention in the task preview in the main chat

Expected Result:

User avatar when opening from task preview mention will be the same as chat header avatar

Actual Result:

User avatar when opening from task preview mention is not the same as chat header avatar

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6478651_1715526208648.20240512_225919.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f5ef607fad2434e6
• Upwork Job ID: 1789924778097631232
• Last Price Increase: 2024-05-27
• Automatic offers:
• tienifr | Contributor | 102496803

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @CortneyOfstad

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jasperhuangg (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open Staging deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly on the following:

1. If you find which PR caused the issue/bug, you can reassign it to the person responsible for it.
   • If the author is OOO or won’t get online before the daily deploy is due, you are responsible for finding the best fix/path forward. Don’t hesitate to ask for help!
2. Try to reproduce the issue, if the bug is on production, remove the DeployBlocker label but stay assigned to fix it (or find out which PR broke it to get help from the author).
   • You can adjust the urgency of the issue to better represent the gravity of the bug.
   • If the issue is super low priority, feel free to un-assign yourself.
   • Be careful with PHP warnings, sometimes it is more complex than just adding a null coalescing operator as they might be uncovering some bigger bug.
   • If it was a one-off issue that requires no action (for example, Bedrock was down or it is a duplicated issue), you can close it.

Remember rule #2: Never un-assign yourself from a real DeployBlocker unless you are 100% sure someone else is assigned and will take care of it.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[lanitochka17]

@jasperhuangg FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #vip-vsp

[Beamanator]

Interesting, so the first time I click on the mention, I see the accountID is 17146630 with avatar https://d2k5nsl2zxldvw.cloudfront.net/images/avatars/default-avatar_23.png - in the profile page, which is correct according to onyx

But in the Report Screen header, in MultipleAvatars we're passing an accountID of 1024805772, which seems to be the optimistic accountID - which is in Onyx, and has a default avatar of https://d2k5nsl2zxldvw.cloudfront.net/images/avatars/default-avatar_13.png

[Beamanator]

In HeaderView, I'm seeing that the report has participantAccountIDs as [1024805772]

So it looks like the NEW accountID is returned in the CreateTask network request, but it looooks like the optimistic account ID isn't being removed, AND it's still being linked to in some places (the report screen header & the "This is the beginning of your chat" intro text avatar

[Beamanator]

I did, however, just reproduce in production so this shouldn't be a blocker - i'm going to test again on another platform

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f5ef607fad2434e6

[Beamanator]

Yep I just reproduced in prod again:

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.10.43.58.AM.mov

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @allroundexperts (External)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @CortneyOfstad (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[tienifr]

@allroundexperts @Beamanator Some notes:

For now I think it's best to just fix the currently affected endpoint & bring up the sanitizing comment in slack to see what others think

1. As per this, the Onyx response sanitization part is not implemented in the ^ PR.
2. Also, in PR Use fallback user avatar in cases where the user is unknown to us #39229 we expected to show fallback avatar for completely new users and will show the actual/colorful avatars later when BE responds. So it seems like this issue is now expected.

However, I still think we need to clear the optimistically generated personal details and report's participants which otherwise would cause an issue that I already described in the ^ PR. Fortunately, the report's participants was already cleared in some other PRs so I just need to implement clearing optimistic personal details.

Moreover, I believe the Onyx issue mentioned in the second point of my proposal here (using merge before set in the same batch for the same key) is quite a systematic problem that should be put to the table for broader and thorough discussions and solutions in the BE.

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.81-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: stale personal details while creating task with new user #43059

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-18. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @allroundexperts requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @tienifr requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@allroundexperts] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@allroundexperts] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@allroundexperts] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@allroundexperts] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@allroundexperts] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@CortneyOfstad] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/407187

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.82-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: stale personal details while creating task with new user #43059

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-20. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @allroundexperts requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @tienifr requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@allroundexperts] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@allroundexperts] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@allroundexperts] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@allroundexperts] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@allroundexperts] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@CortneyOfstad] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/407187

[CortneyOfstad]

@allroundexperts can you please complete the checklist by EOD so there is no delay in payment tomorrow? Thanks!

[CortneyOfstad]

@allroundexperts bump on the checklist above ^^^

[allroundexperts]

On it today!

[allroundexperts]

Checklist

1. There isn't any PR which caused this issue. It seems like we had an inconsistency in the way that backend was sending a merge before set.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. A regression test would be useful here. The test steps given in the OP seem easy to follow.

[CortneyOfstad]

Payment Summary

@tienifr — paid $250 via Upwork
@allroundexperts — to be paid $250 via NewDot

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @allroundexperts